Category:Sportspeople from the Tampa Bay Area[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are varying definitions as to what composes the Tampa Bay area. How can we then have a Occupation from a undefined area. ...William 23:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is much more useful than the by city category. People are more often connected with metro areas than specific cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that most of the articles in this category don't have a corresponding by city category they could fit into and even if one were made it would be too small to warrant being a category. —dainomite 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sports persons who are from the tampa bay area (Template:Tampa Bay Area) who do not fit into any of the three child-categories of this category. This category is a better defined area for these articles than Category:Sportspeople from Florida since there are no by county or by city categories that the articles could go into. —dainomite 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert and Dainomite. Dwscomet (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with no rationale given and no meaning obvious. Categorisation of c 10 articles now reverted as category gave no added value to content, having no obvious meaning. Category now empty. VelellaVelella Talk 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty category. —dainomite 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary layer of categorization of albums with this eponymous category. Plenty of precedent in CfD that eponymous categories need much more content than a subcatategory already with an established scheme. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus, but it sounds like users are leaning towards having an RFC/broader discussion about these issues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name better fits the usual "Films about..." convention, and avoids ambiguity. "Apartheid films" could describe films made under apartheid, for example. BDD (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Apartheid in film - per reasoning on several recent CFD nominations. In the alternative, close this and all similar recent CFDs and open a centralized discussion rather than addressing this on a piecemeal basis. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the new name is way better. The current name is too ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and open an RFC. We need a centralised discussion on this rather than a stream of individual CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the need for consistency, but as long as we're discussing one potentially confusing or misleading name, isn't it worth fixing this one in the meantime? If we choose Category:Films about apartheid or Category:Apartheid in film and a centralized discussion chooses the other, we simply rename again. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:DEADLINE, and the "fix" agreed here may not seem so appropriate when subjected to wider scrutiny. Why waste time having lots of little fragmented discussions? Much better to spend our energies on a comprehensive solution. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG, but would want to discuss a threshold question on what reliable sources tell us that the film is of the genre or about the topic being categorized. Is "Titanic" about a boy-meets-girl scenario, or a boat sinking, or about the quest for sunken treasure on the wreck? Who says it's about what. And if a film can be analyzed to be "about" more than one thing, is it really "about" anything? Like adding fauna of Fooland categories to rat, people, or pigeon articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above, Carlos. All those aspects are merely plot devices in a story about hubris ;)
Seriously, tho, you are right. Critics and academics earn a living partly through arguing what works of fiction are "about", and great fiction is often "about" several themes. I have argued before against this form of categforisation, usually to no avail.
However, I think that the broad question of "aboutness" is one which should be considered in a broader discussion, i.e. an RFC. Any local consensus in this CFD should not override the presumed existing consensus tat this form of category is acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hubris? yes... And I thought it was how a music group sticks together through thick and thin - a kind of Spinal Tap period piece with a Welsh hymn music genre. :) Any how, there's little doubt my tilting at windmills will not stop these categories' proliferation, but we really ought to think these through at a higher level to see if they are encyclopedic or movie fanclubisms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films featuring Apartheid. Apartheid films is too ambiguous, but the current suggestsed target would seem to be about films that study the subject, where we really just want films that show it, not neccesarily tell us much about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a special case, which should be treated uniquely. This is a term that means many things, and its specific meaning needs to be made clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- no strong preference between alternatives offered, but the present name will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upmerge per nom. —dainomite 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upmerge per nom. —dainomite 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The double upmerge is certainly necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category. Play, Ruby, Play was somehow erroneously credited to Brent, but was actually written by Troy Seals and Tony Brown (record producer). Brent Mason is primarily a session musician, and the vast majority of his entries on BMI are either a.) non-notable album cuts, b.) music bumpers for TV shows, or c.) cuts from the two solo instrumental albums he did, neither of which has an article. In short, WP:OCAT#SMALL for a person whose bread-and-butter is not songwriting. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again per WP:SMALLCAT as nominator is aware - part of a category scheme with 4000+ entries. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the person is not a songwriter? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the nom has it backwards. We are categorising the song, not the person, and the writer is a defining characteristic of a song. (This said, I'm not entirely sure that a song co-written by 3 or more writers such as Hurry Sundown should be categorised by all the writers.) Oculi (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you would agree that "Now and Then There's Such a Fool as I" should be categorized as Category:Songs written by Bill Trader, even though it's literally the only thing he ever wrote, just because it's part of an established category scheme? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Every subcategory uses the "FOO people convicted of spying for the Soviet Union" format. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom I created this category. Names have evolved over time. The rename name is better at this point. Hmains (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator....William 11:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support current name is highly ambiguous. Is it a spy for the Soviets, a spy who is a Soviet, a spy for the Soviets who is a Soviet, etc. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport -- My initiual reaction was that this was for spies convicted by USSR! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Novels set on the New York City Subway[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single entry populating the category. Appears too narrow. I think that simply using Category:Novels set in New York City would be fine. Sven ManguardWha? 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We categorize novels by city or larger place they are set in, not by what specific transportation network they occur in. Anyway, a bunch more novels could be included if we allowed for any scenes on the subway, but that would be categorization by trivial characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jerry. I doubt there are many novels set solely on the subway, though I expect it occurs in many novels on New York. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
